Case law

Congress of Racial Equality v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

270 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 20, 1967

The principles of sovereign immunity preclude this Court from granting such relief. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., supra; Malone v. … The first three numbered paragraphs are clearly inapplicable. To support its claim of jurisdiction under paragraph (4), plaintiff cites Executive Order 11246 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Akinola v. Corizon Health Service

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 22, 2023

Qualified Immunity Furthermore, Officer Lavin is entitled to qualified immunity. … If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability.

Fladger v. State of Maryland

District Court, D. Maryland · Feb 19, 2021

If the right was not clearly established, the qualified immunity doctrine shields a defendant officer from liability. … The individual defendants named in Fladger’s complaint are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right for Fladger to have any and all complaints processed

Conover v. Conover

450 Md. 51 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 7, 2016

Next, the court ruled that even if Michelle qualified as a “father” under ET § l-208(b) despite her being female, the statute did not establish parentage for purposes of child custody and visitation: A non-biological, non-adoptive … For these reasons, the first ground for overruling Janice M. is satisfied—the precedent was “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles.” DRD Pool Serv., 416 Md. at 64 , 5 A.3d 45 . Janice M.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena

524 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 2, 1981

The attorney-client privilege clearly has no application as the former client has executed a waiver of that privilege. … The Court, however, elaborated on their conclusion that work-product enjoyed “a nearly absolute immunity” as opposed to absolute immunity.

Elliott v. Kupferman

58 Md. App. 510 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 12, 1984

The establishment of basic procedures for interrogations, investigations, and hearings is not the same as limiting the causes for which an officer may be dismissed. … To the extent that Counts II through VII allege causes of action, they are clearly in tort.

Ivy H. Smith Co. v. Warffemius

201 Md. 367 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Oct 1, 1965

Applicable Immunities of Principal. An agent who is acting in pursuance of his authority has such immunities of the principal as are not personal to the principal. Herzog v. … Clearly they were' intended to "prevent a trespass- by the contractor and thus liability on the Co-operative — and it would not be liable unless the contractor were its ’ agent.

Bass v. State

182 Md. 496 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Dec 15, 1943

This common law rule, as revised, became formally established in England and was the law there when the government of the United States was formed. … The case at bar presents a state of facts which clearly shows the line of distinction between these two classifications.

H. R. v. Hornbeck

524 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 24, 1981

Among the prerequisites to qualifying for this federal financial aid, the state education authorities must establish to the satisfaction of the United States Commissioner of Education that a policy has been established “that … Plaintiffs are not attacking the procedures established by the defendants to qualify for federal funds under the EAHC Act. *218 Instead, they complain that these procedures are being circumvented by the expulsion and suspension

Grayson v. State

1 Md. App. 548 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 1, 1967

Ed. 2d 694 (1966) has applicability to the present case since it has been clearly established by Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 716 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 882 , and Westfall v. … obvious on its face, the burden falls upon the State to establish that the jury panel has been properly impaneled.

Doe 4 v. Montgomery County Board of Education

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 21, 2023

The claimed injuries to Plaintiffs clearly militate against issuance of a stay. 4. … Public interest Finally, Defendants assert that the public has an important interest in the proper application of qualified immunity.

Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Corp. v. Yanni

397 Md. 474 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Mar 15, 2007

It is statutorily required to investigate all claims brought against the Corporation, settle and pay all covered claims, and deny all other claims not qualifying as “covered.” … The court concluded that CIGA’s immunity provision prevailed over the penalty provision of the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act because, following well-established rules of statutory interpretation, “to the extent there

McNeil v. Becker

District Court, D. Maryland · Jul 2, 2025

Officers are immune from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been known.” Harlow [v. … This standard leads to two questions: (1) whether any right was violated, (2) whether that right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Mayor of Baltimore v. Chase

360 Md. 121 · Court of Appeals of Maryland · Jul 27, 2000

Section 5-604 grants qualified immunity from civil liability for negligence to fire and rescue companies and their personnel. … Although there are times when the statutory language is clearly consistent with the apparent purpose of the legislature and further research is not necessary, there are other times when more extensive inquiry is required.

(2004)

89 Op. Att'y Gen. 66 · Maryland Attorney General Reports · Mar 26, 2004

Where, however, either the county or a municipality has established a police force, general law enforcement functions are the responsibility of the local police department, and not the sheriff. … In such a case, the law enforcement officer did not enjoy the benefit of official immunities that applied to the officer's actions within his or her jurisdiction. B.

Jemal's Fairfield Farms, LLC v. Prince George's County

319 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, D. Maryland · Mar 26, 2004

If that is the case, then Wilson may be entitled to assert only qualified immunity under the standards articulated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Id. … Assuming, arguendo, that Wilson committed the act in a non-legislative capacity, there remains a question of whether Wilson may claim qualified immunity.

Baucom v. Potter

225 F. Supp. 2d 585 · District Court, D. Maryland · Sep 17, 2002

To establish a cause of action for disparate treatment under the Rehabilitation Act, 4 a plaintiff must show that 1) he has a disability, 2) he is otherwise qualified for the position, and 3) he suffered an adverse employment … To establish a failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff must show that 1) he is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, i.e., he is able to perform the essential functions of the job in question with or without

Morency v. Uguru

District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 30, 2023

An officer enjoys the defense of qualified immunity when his conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” McDaniel v. … To enjoy the protection of qualified immunity, the officer must show that either he did not violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, or that if he did, no clearly established law existed at the time to alert

United States v. Maryland

471 F. Supp. 1030 · District Court, D. Maryland · Jun 12, 1979

Thus, the 1974 Act also served to confirm the construction intended by the Legislature but not clearly expressed in the 1971 Act. … Federal Immunity from State Taxation: A Reassessment, 45 Chi.L.Rev. 695 (1978). .

Watts v. Prince George's Cnty.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 29, 2025

Employment Practices Act and PGCC § 2-222 directly waived sovereign immunity. … If the language of the statute is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute’s apparent purpose, our inquiry as to legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written, without